Re: [DotGNU]More compelling reasons against Mono...

[David Sugar]

I think a much more apt and fair comparison would be if the GNU project 
had chosen only to create gcc and then chose to either ignore or avoid 
the much broader issue of all the software around the compiler (the 
operating system, libraries and tools) being non-free.  While, as you 
correctly note, gcc in itself does not address any of the broader issues 
of software freedom alone, it certainly does so within the context of 
the GNU project as a whole.  It is in this context which DotGNU exists 
for and around individual projects like pnet, and for which that I see 
Mono fails or chooses not to address.

David

Paolo Molaro wrote:

> On 03/15/02 Gopal.V wrote:
>
> > If memory serves me right, Roland Ljungh wrote:
> >
> > > Since when? Mono is designed to be a developer environment for linux...
> >         Exactly it does not tackle any of the privacy/security/freedom concerns
> > of .NET . 
>
> GCC does not tackle any of the privacy/security/freedom concerns
> of .NET . Wow, gcc must be evil, then....
>
> > > Yeah, right! Come on now, why would a compiler and a jit and a classlibrary 
> > > not work without ms software?
> > 	You bootstrapped off MS software -- so without MS providing CSC 
> > in the first place , you would be going *fast* nowhere writing a compiler 
> > in C#. So you see MS software does come up in the Mono picture.
>
> Of course, the GCC you use was first bootstrapped on a GNU/Linux system
> booted by a free-software BIOS on a computer with schematics provided
> for all its circuits (oh, the CPU was designed with a free-sofware tool,
> too). I wish that could be true, but desire doesn't change history.
>
> lupus